The defendant repeatedly became excited, for example, over the so-called slackers, Germans unwilling to work whom he considered to be traitors. Each time he issued strict orders expressed wild threats, but would it not have been the most natural thin for this excitable man on all these occasions which followed one on the heels of the other, to shout at his subordinates and to reproach them, to ask them why the orders which he had given and supported before in anger, and which he had advanced repeatedly had not long since been carried out. Would that not have been the most natural and the primary thing that he would have done in his anger if he had really expected and wanted his wild orders carried out? Your Honors, look at it from the human point of view. Revive all the experiences of your long and no doubt rich lives and examine with me whether I am not right in what I say.
I challenge my learned opponent to show me in all these instances, which are really appalling, one single expression indicating that the defendant objected to the failure to carry out his earlier threatening orders. Not a single word can be found and here, your Honors, the truth becomes so obvious that no intelligent man can ignore it. It sounded incredible in the mouth of the witnesses when they said again and again that no such orders were carried out. It has been put to the defendant that it is improbable that a Field Marshal did not expect his orders to be carried out and that all his subordinates did not immediately rush to carry out his orders, but the man who is sitting before you told the truth in spite of all appearances to the contrary, for if he as a field marshal had expected his orders issued in anger to be carried out then he would surely at one time or another have expressed dissatisfaction because they had not been carried out. But he did nothing except to get angry from his sickness and his anxiety about his people. It is clear not only from the Terboven case that he actually knew nothing about what he had screamed out and that he never seriously pressed home his demands. The court has questioned him repeatedly about these expressions. He always replied that he did not remember them and he didn't believe that he had said so.
He has often had to tell you that what he shouted was wrong if he had actually said it. That too seemed incredible at first, but as this man afterwards no longer knew what he said in these attacks then he cannot testify about it. It is also clear that a man in such a fit, speaks many untruths and one cannot assert that he lied deliberately. The man, as I say today, has told you the truth as far as he can know it to the best of his knowledge and belief. These transcripts cannot convict him of untruthfulness. Moreover, in many cases the transcripts arc no doubt full of mistakes; distortions and errors. I have shown you a number of passages which must be wrong. I have shown you transcripts such as N.O.K.W. 359, Exhibit 75, which speak of Milch's presence and of statements made although that day he could not have been present in the Jaegerstab. This is also true of some records of ostensible G.L. meetings. I have also proved that other transcripts make no logical sense in the German text and that several statements must have been run together there. Today, of course, no one can say whether these various statements were all made by the defendant. Many witnesses which I have examined on this matter, for example, to name but a few: Richter, Pendele, Hertel, Speer and Vorwald, have testified that the transcripts contained many errors and that they were never corrected, that they were sometimes even intentionally distorted when the defendant attacked his superiors. Such passages were either left out or changed in such a way that the attacks on the person in question were no longer recognizable. But who would seriously consider it permissible to use such faulty transcripts as evidence?
All the witnesses from the entourage of the defendant Finally have told you that in these Central Planning Boards, as well as in the Jaegerstab and G.L. meetings, in addition to transcripts reproducing the individual speeches and opinions, so-called records of results were drawn up which contained only the really important decisions, orders and regulations. They alone were valid for the subordinates. They alone were decisive for them. It is noteworthy that the Prosecution has not submitted a single one of those records of results containing any inhuman orders issued by the defendant.
I beg of you, your Honors, not only to give severe consideration to the weaknesses of the defense, I beg you to draw your severe conclusions also from the weaknesses of the prosecution as well. The fact that no incriminating records of results have been submitted proves once more that these threats were never carried out.
Your Honors, in disturbed times other men, too, sometimes say things which cannot be taken seriously. Men can be judged only according to their deeds, not according to their chatter. If you have access to Churchill's speech made in his first excitement after Dunkirk, you can sec what violations of international law he recommended to the civilian population of England when he called upon them to prevent a German airborne landing. But he never actually issued any such orders, and so no one will try him for that. When the late General Patton said at one time that he intended to continue to collaborate with such of the German Nazis as were specialists, some excited American newspapers ran this headline. "Patton Should Be Shot". Who would be so stupid as to call these newspapers inhumane? No one in the world; no one takes such excited words seriously. No one can say that these outbursts of anger meant that Milch approved the atrocities which occurred elsewhere in Germany.
The affidavits of Kruedener, Exhibit Milch 37, Lotte Mueller, Exhibit Milch 38, the testimony of witnesses Koenig, Vorwald, Pendele have all shown that this man always and everywhere tried to help people in distress. He, who ostensibly wanted to force the foreign workers and concentration camp inmates to work by means of starving them, had the concentration camp inmates supplied with food from his estate near Rechlin in order to improve their diet. Thus, in his actions, he did the opposite of what he shouted in his anger. But one could raise a very serious charge to the effect that Milch by his thoughtless manner of speaking incited the elements throughout the country which committed such misdeeds. But this again, your Honors, is untrue. You have not heard one single example here of anyone having acted according to Milch's words and having referred to having done so. These displays of fury only occurred among people who knew Milch and knew that he could not be taken seriously in such moments. All witnesses have stated for you that these fits only became known to the circle of intimates.
I lived in Germany throughout the war. Although the sins of the high ranking leaders of the Reich were eagerly discussed among the people, I never heard one word about Milch's fits of rage. In reply to my question the witness Vorwald stated convincingly that nobody spoke about these incidents to other persons because they did not wish to expose their superior to whom they were attached. His loyal followers surrounded with a cordon of silence. Nothing could more understandable, and every decent person who respects his superior will and must act in the same manner, for, in spite of his occasional fierceness, Milch was popular with his subordinates. The witnesses Richter, Hertel, Pendele and Vorwald, among others, testified before you that Milch was highly esteemed. Richter actually called him the best and fairest superior whom he had ever met in all his life. Here, your Honors, in this praise Milch's true nature appears before our eyes.
I believe, therefore, to be justified in saying that one cannot and must not judge Milch by his wild talk. To infer guilt from that would mean to pass a judgment which could never be uphold before justice. Nobody may be judged by empty phrases. I would like to tell you a true story here which occurred in Germany during the discussions about a new, more stringent National Socialist penal code.
At that time the Party took the point of view that criminal intent in itself was punishable, and thus, during a meeting of the Penal Law Commission in connection with the question of the meaning of murder, a long debate developed as to whether a person who intended to bring about the death of an enemy by prayer was to be punished by death for murder The majority of Party members concurred with this mad opinion on the punishment of criminal intent. The sensible ones protested against it for a long time. When the debate was nearing its end, Dr. Guertner, the Reich Minister of Justice at the time, a clear sighted man, rose and with one single sentence made reason prevail. These were his words: "Gentlemen, I do not understand you. All my life a corpse has been part of a murder." The narrow minded Party doctrinaires had to give in to the scornful laughter that followed these words. And in that way I should like here to think of Milch's wild talk and exclaim, "Where is the corpse?"
In my opinion the only remaining question which needs serious discussion is merely that of the employment of foreign workers, of POW's, and of concentration camp inmates. To begin with, it must be mentioned that the prosecution in its opening speech maintained that Milch more than anybody else in Germany was occupied with the employment of forced labor in Germany. That statement, however, is in no way correct. That, at least, has been clarified by the evidence beyond all doubt, it seems to me. There can be no doubt that Sauckel and Speer had considerably more to do with so-called forced labor than Milch quite apart from Hitler and Goering themselves.
It is necessary to visualize clearly the scope of Milch's sphere of activities and of his authority. Your Honors, even if you were only to check the three part Exhibit Milch 55 which I submitted, even to a superficial scrutiny only, you would realize immediately that Speer alone had a great deal more to do with this work than Milch. Speer was in charge of all armaments for the Army and Navy which, measured in human beings, by far exceeded the Luftwaffe, and alone exceeded the volume of the Luftwaffe armament many times, in particular as Milch only dealt with the construction of airplanes and as all equipment for the crews, in fact, were part of the Army equipment.
Furthermore, Speer was in charge of all other productions in the German Reich. Finally, after the establishment of the Jaegerstab Speer was also placed in charge of all armaments for the Luftwaffe. This Exhibit Milch 55, to which the defendant has sworn and which is based on the prosecution's own Exhibit 58, reveals a much greater and more comprehensive scope of Speer's organization. It was he, who as the central authority, not only controlled an apparatus with considerably more tasks; he alone also had at his disposal the executive authorities in the country who dealt with all matters which had to be taken, whereas Milch had no executive organs at his disposal. He had, therefore, no executive powers whatsoever. Speer alone was in charge of the powerful main committees, the main industrial rings (cartels of factories) in which the captains of industry exerted their influence and power.
He was also in charge of the armament commissions and armament officials of the armament inspectorates and armament detachments in the defense districts. And lastly, the Gau Plenipotentiaries and provincial economic offices in the whole country listened to him. He was with Hitler almost every week, and therefore, he possessed much more influence which was only second to Sauckel's.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you what was Koerner's special interest?
DR. BERGOLD: I am not speaking about Central Planning Board here. I am only speaking about the GL.
THE PRESIDENT: I know, but in the Central Planning Board what particular field was Koerner interested in -- the Navy?
DR. BERGOLD: Koerner? No, he was mainly in charge of agriculture. He testified to that effect.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. BERGOLD: Speer was with Hitler almost once a week and had therefore much more influence to which Sauckel's power set the only limit. The man Milch never possessed such a machine. The GL was nothing but a technical agency in the Reich Air Ministry which generally, as the witnesses Vorwald and Hertel confirmed, was told by the General Staff of the Luftwaffe what was to be constructed.
If Milch had really been the powerful man as the prosecution describes him, it would have been possible for him to carry out his plan for Germany's air defense. But the achievement of this goal for which this man worked with unbelievable effort and with all energy was denied to him simply because he was only in charge of a technical office which could not make any fundamental decisions whatsoever. Hitler, Goering, and the General Staff of the Luftwaffe decided what this man had to construct and what plans he was to carry out. He carried them out only within the framework of the task with which he was entrusted, always being in the central authority without solid foundation of power, without the direct authority to give orders to industry, without influence on the supply of manpower and materials, he could only get influence through the Central Planning Office, and there too the fundamental decisions were made by Hitler, by the latter himself, or on the advice of Speer.
It is not necessary for me to name all the witnesses. All his collaborators have testified to that effect. May it please the Tribunal, if you examine the statements made by Hertel and Vorwald, you will gather from them beyond any doubt that the GL had nothing to do at all with the question of labor, with the recruiting, transportation and assignment of workers. The GL and this cannot possibly be doubted by anyone, after hearing all these witnesses and especially after Milch's testimony, had merely to make the blueprints for airplanes and construction necessary for this purpose, and then to place the orders with the completely independent industry following in all this the instructions of the General Staff and the orders given by Hitler and Goering. All witnesses from the GL had confirmed before you that the GL had nothing to do at all with the labor question; that he did not request one single worker or exert any influence on Sauckel. It is true that requests for labor passed, for statistical reasons, through the GL office, and also for the carrying out of control. But it is importan to remember and never to forget that the industry submitted its real labor requests through the country to the labor exchange offices which were Sauckel's agencies and to the armament inspectorates and armament detachments which were Speer's agencies.
Vorwald and the defendant himself have shown you with unmistakable clearness that the only thing which the GL had to do with these requests was merely that he examined these requests of the industry from the points of view of material as well as labor, and that he then reported to the Speer Ministry whether and how far the requests of the industry were exaggerated and mistaken and if the GL considered fewer materials and less manpower to be adequate.
Now, what does such an activity actually mean? Surely not as the prosecution submits, the enslavement of now workers, but exactly the contrary; namely their reduction. If the GL had not exercised his beneficial activity Sauckel would have got much larger requests from the industry and he would have procured this labor by means of more forceful methods than he actually did. That the industry had to request workers in order to carry out its tasks assigned by Hitler, Goering and the General Staff of the Luftwaffe, being the authorities which decided on the extent of the construction program of air armaments, was however not caused by the GL. He was nothing else but an executive organ in the chain of command from Hitler, Goering and the General Staff. He was merely the technical agency which had to make the blueprints and constructions, and then, after approval by higher authorities had to submit them to the industry for the taking of orders.
This, your Honors, is the result of the evidence produced on the activity of the GL, and the only thing which the GL did in the framework of this activity was to reduce to the lowest level the requests for labor made by industry, for the many reasons that he was sufficiently expert to see through the exaggerated requests of industry which could never get enough workers.
It is significant that the GL minutes which have been submitted nowhere reveal a discussion of real manpower guidance, but, at the utmost, that once a few questions were discussed for information purposes. It is furthermore, highly significant that among the entire organizations of the GL there were no offices for labor assignment and labor control as was the case in the Armament Ministry of Speer (see Exhibit Mi 55), but merely statistics of the personnel. There is nothing to clarify the real situation better than this fact.
Can the defendant be blamed for the fact that industry, which had to carry out Hitler's construction program, employed foreign workers, prisoners of war, concentration camp inmates --? Industry had employed these people before the beginning of Milch's tenure of office; it employed them because Hitler had ordered through Sauckel that industry had to employ these people not in order to obtain slave labor for slave labor's sake -- but for the only reason to be able to throw still more Germans into the greedy jaws of the fiendish war and thus surely causing disaster for Germans as well as for other peoples.
As far as the GL is concerned -- the least reproach can be made to Milch of all reporaches that can be made to him. It only consists in that he passed orders on to the air armament industry (and where did this not occur during the war?), and that he saw to it that no exaggerated requests for material and manpower were made.
The prosecution has proved nothing which could contradict these statements. But Milch has --- and this, too, has been proven -- not only curtailed exaggerated labor requests of the industry by means of his statistics, thus preventing the increase of foreign labor, but in addition to that, as was stated by the witnesses Brauchitsch, Pendele, Hertel, Vorwald, and others, he always endeavored seriously and successfully to maintain the German workers in the factories; and in doing so he even saved German workers who should be drafted, at least to the amount of 70,000 for the air armament factories, keeping thus on a lower level further requests for foreign workers and their assignment. A man who, as the prosecution means, is keen on slave labor does not act in that way.
Finally, there is another point to be mentioned in this connection. The 2422-A International Military Tribunal -- which, by the way, states expressly in its verdict against Sauckel that there is no doubt of Sauckel having had the overall responsibility for the slave labor program -- that Tribunal stated in its verdict against Speer that it has to be considered as a mitigating circumstance in his favor, that by setting up protected factories Speer had kept many workers in their homelands.
Your Honors will remember the depositions of Hertel, Vorwald, and Milch, from which it can be seen that as early as 1941 Milch, firstly together with Udot and later on alone, had factories working in France on the basis of a free agreement with the French plants in order to employ French workers in their home country.
International Military Tribunal -- which, by the way, states expressly in its verdict against Sauckel that there is no doubt of Sauckel having had the overall responsibility for the slave labor program -- that Tribunal stated in its verdict against Speer that it has to be considered as a mitigating circumstance in his favor, that by setting up protected factories Speer had kept many workers in their homelands. Your Honors will remember the depositions of Hertel, Vorwald, and Milch, from which it can be seen that as early as 1941 Milch, firstly together with Udot and later on alone, had factories working in France on the basis of a free agreement with the French plants in order to employ French workers in their home country. These agreements were, as has been testified by Foerster, completely free, because in 1941 the industry of that part of France although not yet occupied at that time had adhered to them. Therefore, Milch was the inventor of the idea to have labor employed on the spot in foreign countries. It was not only in France that he, being the first, carried that our. You have heard that this occurred also in Holland and in Hungary. Now, if the International Military Tribunal counted this circumstance as a mitigating one for Speer, it must all the more be credited to the defendant who acted in that way not merely from 1943 onward, as did Speer according to his own statement in this trial, but already as early as 1941, and being the first to do so at that. In this instance again the defendant proved to be a man who endeavored to mitigate as much as possible the difficulties which had arisen from the exigencies of the times. That much as far as the defendant's activity as GL is concerned.
When I come to consider in how far Milch's activity in the Central Planning Board could be charged against him, I am aware that some of the minutes of the Central Planning Board could, in themselves, be interpreted as a charge against Milch. But if your Honors consider that out of sixty meetings of the Central Planning Board the prosecution could only list fifteen meetings in which labor questions were discussed - this being done in some instances in a perfunctory and casual way -- it results from this fact already that the Central Planning Board, as to its aim, was not charged with the guiding of manpower which at that time was the focal point of many schemes in all countries, and, above all, in Germany.
In this trial there was much argument between the prosecution and the 2423-A defense as to the significance and the essence of the Central Planning Board until, eventually, with the help of the key document Prosecution Exhibit 157, NOKW 245, the argument has been decided upon.
There it says on page 5407 of the German text, literally: "Speer and I (that is, Milch) are of the opinion that he (Sauckel) has to be incorporated somehow in the Central Planning Board in order to get into our hands also the labor assignment, besides the material. At the present time we have no possibility to steer it."
These words were voiced on 23 February 1943 after the Central Planning Board had been in existence for already one year. These words were not voiced at that time for the purpose of ex post facto whitewashing, but they expressed the complete truth, unmistakeably characterized the situation in quite simple and clear words for ever and always. No decree has been submitted, nor has there been proved any order of Hitler to the effect that this situation has been changed at any time. At no time, indeed, at no time was Sauckel a member of the Central Planning Board. If the prosecution wants to consider the wish Milch uttered at that occasion as incriminating, they are at liberty to do so. However, this is not a punishable deed, and nobody can tell what amount of good Milch could have done if he had actually been in charge of the labor assignment. His other deeds account for the assumption that he would certainly have stopped abuses and would have mitigated all that was necessary as far as possible. The members of this trial would not really believe, at first, the depositions of all the witnesses who have been heard here, including Koerner's stating that the Central Planning Board dealt with labor questions merely for reasons of information. The wording of the speeches seemed to contradict it. But, Your Honors, the witnesses have also testified before you that the speeches could only be understood if they are read by an initiated. This, at first, does not sound very intelligible, as no one of us is among the initiated. Prosecution Exhibit 157 has put an end to all such doubts. Whoever wants to pronounce here the verdict with all the necessary seriousness cannot bypass this document. Nobody can contend any longer that the defendant has not told you the full truth.
Therefore, his statement under oath is to be believed, which agrees with Speer's statement in that the socalled labor assignment meetings were held with Sauckel always with the sole aim to obtain from *******, 2424-A Sauckel, who had reported so many false figures and was not scrupulous about telling the truth, eventually and for once, clear figures.
Likewise, Prosecution Exhibit 134, NOKW 195, the report on the meeting of 28 October 1943, held at Goering's place, shows a constant struggle with Sauckel in order to obtain true figures because Hitler would not believe that Sauckel's figures were completely false. It has been proven that actually both Speer and Milch have been reproached because they did not fulfill the program made by Hitler, although many millions of workers had allegedly been at their disposal. Alone for air armament, according to Goering's calculation based on Sauckel's figures, five million workers should have been available - whereas the entire air armament employed a much lower total of people. As Hitler was a dangerous man and his reproaches could have disagreeable consequences, Speer and Milch cannot be blamed for wanting to get this subject clear; consequently, if they discussed this problem in detail especially during 53rd and 54th meetings of the Central Planning Board this had nothing to do at all with labor procurement. That these meetings have not been called by Milch - that they have been called by Speer and his ministry, has been proven. Milch presided over these meetings only because Speer was ill. But he only carried through the orders of his friend Speer. But even these discussions do not alter the fact that the Central Planning Board did not obtain any influence on the carrying out of the labor procurement nor on its distribution. How characteristic it is, however, for Milch that he used even this discussion about Sauckel's figures in order to reduce the millions of new workers whom Hitler had ordered in January 1944, to quite a considerable extent.
In all the discussions submitted there is nowhere a word to be found, either, to the effect that Milch had requested workers for his air armament.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, will you select a convenient stopping place for the recess?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, yes, I thought of that.
THE PRESIDENT: I take it you are not going to finish before the recess.
DR. BERGOLD: I thought that. All right. I shall be there very quickly (Continuing). If the need for workers was under discussion, then always only, as the defendant himself confirmed, in regard to the basic industries-that is, mining and the iron industry and in regard to agriculture. It was always a question, as the records show, of the commitment of prisoners of war But even according to the Geneva Convention prisoners of war may be employed in mining, in the production of iron, and in agriculture. These places of work are not actual armament industries.
That Milch did not have anything to do with the commitment of Russians in anti-aircraft defense (flak), which was not under him at all; that, on the contrary, he even opposed it, and that that part of the minutes of the 33rd meeting of the Central Planning Board must be incorrect here, too, has been stated by the witnesses Hertel, Koening, an well as others in an equally unobjectionable manner. It has not been proven that this order was issued by the OKW directly via Goering.
Thus Milch, in his capacity as member of the Central Planning Board, was neither perpetrator of, nor accomplice in, crimes; nor did the Central Planning Board have as its purpose the commission of such crimes. Its sole purpose was the distribution of raw materials -- an activity which is not prohibited under any conditions.
DR. BERGOLD: I interrupt here.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess for lunch now.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 25 March 1947)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please take their seats.
The Tribunal Number Two is again in session.
DR. BERGOLD: The third activity of Milch which could bring him in connection with the so-called slave labor was the activity on the Jaegerstab. Were one to view this membership in the Jaegerstab from the point of view of the prosecution, one could perhaps maintain the previously formed opinion that this activity was limited to the increased use of slave labor. The testimony of Speer, Vorwald and Milch, however, have shown that the Jaegerstab had two main aims, namely; first, to raise the production of fighter planes and, secondly, to facilitate Milch's resignation from his office by transferring the entire air armament industry to the ministry of Speer.
Formerly, to be sure, Milch was one of the chairmen of this Jaegerstab, but the witnesses--among them Schmelter, Hertel, Eschenauer and Vorwald--have testified that the actual chairman of this Jaegerstab was Saur. Milch very soon withdrew from the Jaegerstab; in March 1944 still participated in fifteen meetings, in April only eight, in may only five, and in June only two. Nothing concerns the veracity of the testimony of the defendant more than the quite obvious decrease in his participation. If one considers the fact that the Jaegerstab held its meetings daily one realizes how rapidly the decrease in the activity of the defendant was... If one considers furthermore that he was not always present at the meetings at all; that he did not hear most of the details of the discussions at these meetings--one can say with certainty that he was really not the man who had the biggest influence in the Jaegerstab, and who performed the practical work there. The expression "Breakfast director" which the witness Dorsch applied to the defendant characterizes the situation excellently.
The Jaegerstab was concerned with labor questions only insofar as it guided the so-called transfer of workers who were already working in industry. In the event changes in production occurred, especially effecting, as far as possible, their transfer from closed down bomber factories to fighter plane factories. However, in this connection it is almost exclusively a question of socalled skilled workers, as the witness Schmelter, a specialist in this field, has confirmed. In this process no new workers of any kind were introduced into the industry. The witness Schmelter, however, finally expressly confirmed that no real influence was exerted on Sauckel and his offices. Wishes regarding the transfer were merely referred to the Organization Sauckel. This fact in particular was emphasized in the statement of Schmelter with all the clarity desirable.
Thus, it has been proved in regard to this committee, too, that it had nothing to do with the bringing of workers into Germany from abroad, or dealt with their re-distribution. Thus, it was also not the purpose of the Jaegerstab to decide labor questions. Finally, it has thus been clarified that the ministry of Speer was the office which handled labor questions, insofar as it was necessary in the framework of the transfers. On the basis of the submitted documents, it seems at first as though the Jaegerstab had initiated and carried out the building of underground factories or of concrete protected factories above ground. The witnesses Speer, Hertel, Eschenauer, Koenig, Spendele, as well as Milch, himself, however, all clearly and decisively confirmed that these constructions were ordered directly by Hitler and Goering, and that the defendant had opposed these orders because he considered them senseless. It has furthermore been declared that Hitler, himself, handled the needs of workers for these undesirable constructions.
The Jaegerstab was connected with these constructions, according to all the testimony, only to the extent that it had to examine which ones of the fighter plane factories had to be installed in them. In this connection it must be remembered that a number of these constructions were also allocated for armament factories of the Wehrmacht. Thus, Milch cannot also be charged with any responsibility in this count. He was neither formally nor actually in a position to prevent Hitler's and Goering's orders. Nor had Milch anything to do with the allocation of Hungarian Jews to these factories, quite apart from the fact that it has been made clear that these Jews were allocated only in the summer of 1944, which was stated by the last prosecution witness, Krysiak. That is at a time when Milch had withdrawn from his office for some time.
It has been proved that Hitler issued relevant orders here and that the Jaegerstab trip to Hungary was entirely unconnected with this matter because it was undertaken solely for the purpose of a conference with the legal Hungarian government. These consultations were merely concerned with agreements regarding aircraft production by the Hungarian industry in the large caves near the Danube. Not one single document has shown that Milch either agreed to or welcomed the employment of Hungarian Jews.
To sum up, I may say then that even within the Jaegerstab Milch was neither a principal nor an abetter in the crimes listed in the indictment. I might add that it was not the purpose of the Jaegerstab to carry out such crimes. In any case he was on that board by no means the leading man. It has been found with certainty beyond all doubt from the defendant's point of view the Jaegerstab served the purpose of helping him to withdraw from office.
Mention will also be made of the question of concentration camp inmates doing work. Before going into details, I should like to make a few basic remarks. From all the trials in which I acted as counsel, from the questions asked in this courtroom, from various discussions I have had with citizens of your country, I have, your Honors, attained the certainty that in your circles no one believes in the truthfulness of the defendants and all other witnesses' statements, namely that the average German knew nothing about the happenings in the concentration camps and that the defendant did not know of the existence of such camps, with the exception of Dachau and Oranienburg. As most Germans certify to this and as all witnesses swear to this under oath, it is first of all difficult to understand why such statements are not believed. It can only be explained by the fact that the citizens of your country have been so much influenced by press propaganda and the newly discovered facts that they put more trust in the reports of their newspapers than in the assurances of the citizens of a country which is now known throughout the world as the place of origin of many atrocities.